Father wins millions from war funeral picketers - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 61 (permalink) Old 11-01-2007, 01:11 PM
~BANNED~
 
deathrattle's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Vehicle: 1992 W126 300 SE
Location: Head in the clouds
Posts: 11,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR View Post
^ More like "your son died because God hates fags, and America isn't killing enough of them, so he took your son instead." I don't know of a more threatening, more vile, more intentionally inflammatory form of speech in which one could engage. It's not exactly nanny, nanny, boo, boo.

And again, this isn't a criminal proceeding. Let's re-read the First Amendment (since it's the tool being used by the defense):



They're legally entitled to say whatever they want; they're not implicitly insulated from the non-criminal consequences of that speech.

If you think the amount of the award is unfair, start advocating and demanding tort reform. The judge and jury did what they were expected and allowed to do. I don't think this award will be overturned quite so quickly as the idiot in question (Phelps) might believe.

Thanks for saving me the bother of articulating that.








deathrattle is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 61 (permalink) Old 11-01-2007, 02:20 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregs300CD View Post

Is it all "sacred ground", or just cemeteries? How is sacred ground legally established?
Did ye not watch Highlander?

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #23 of 61 (permalink) Old 11-01-2007, 02:24 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR View Post
Greg - I think what makes much of a Judge's job difficult and important, is the ability to weigh all of those factors.

It's obvious that the intent of these people was to offend. They can call it whatever they want, and try to hide behind the 1st Amendment and what not, but the reality was these are a "group" of people willfully engaging in the practice of advocating hate.

If their "religious" belief was that their God dislikes homosexuals, I'm sure the could find a way to make that known without using terminology that any reasonable person would associate with hate speech.

I don't think it matters where it happened, either. I see these guys every once in a rare while on busy street corners around town. Their message is equally reprehensible there. Talk about trolling.

The fact that they demonstrated where they did, indicates just how calculated and purposeful their efforts were, and shredded any chance at having their claims of protected, religious speech taken seriously.

Given all of this, I think it's absolutely correct to determine their "speech" was not protected, and that their acts were bordering on criminal. Civil cases have different criteria for "guilt" - I don't know if guilt is really what's being tried or evaluated in a civil proceeding. Without a doubt, they were culpable for their actions, and should pay accordingly.

So, about tort reform......
What if it was Flip Benham and his group in front of yet another legal Abortion Clinic and he was the one sued and lost?

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #24 of 61 (permalink) Old 11-01-2007, 03:37 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Trying to follow that, bear with me.

What I know of Flip Benham is that he advocates "non-lethal violence". That's criminal in nature, and there's a system of justice in place for that.

Any civil judgement resulting from those activities is probably warranted, but like any case, it would need to be weighed on the merits of the arguments presented by counsel. It would also need to be weighed against the 'intent', which seems (in his case) to go well beyond simple demonstration and into terrorism.

I don't think there's a reasonable court in the land that would find "non-lethal violence" a form of protected speech because of his rather tenuous ties to a 'religion'. Nor should they.
Qubes is offline  
post #25 of 61 (permalink) Old 11-01-2007, 03:45 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR View Post
Trying to follow that, bear with me.

What I know of Flip Benham is that he advocates "non-lethal violence". That's criminal in nature, and there's a system of justice in place for that.

Any civil judgement resulting from those activities is probably warranted, but like any case, it would need to be weighed on the merits of the arguments presented by counsel. It would also need to be weighed against the 'intent', which seems (in his case) to go well beyond simple demonstration and into terrorism.

I don't think there's a reasonable court in the land that would find "non-lethal violence" a form of protected speech because of his rather tenuous ties to a 'religion'. Nor should they.
Well, taking away the violence [which has not always remained non-lethal] what about just the very harsh and very vocal protests? I have seen both Phelps protests at Military funerals and Benham protests at Clinics up close and there frankly is ZERO difference.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #26 of 61 (permalink) Old 11-01-2007, 03:46 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar View Post
The victims were neither physically nor financially harmed, as far as I can tell. If you find $11 million for a "words can never hurt me" claim, I shudder to think what you would find appropriate for an actual "sticks and stones" case. How about FTL? How much should he receive from the perp if his hand is permanently disabled? More or less than for 'nanny nanny boo boo'?

Hint: he would probably be looking at 5 or 6 figures -- tops.
So, two things here.

1) Intent. The bastards in question above intended to intimidate, and spew a message of hate, precisely picking the opportunity upon which they would mobilize and act. It was a group of people, and much premeditation was involved. This wasn't a flare-up in the heat of the moment. This was a cold, calculated effort to set an ignition spark to a very emotionally charged atmosphere. Inciting hate or riots is not protected by anything, to say nothing of the fact that this case wasn't criminal in nature - I think this fact is overlooked at the peril of the observer.

2) Damages. The jury can only do what the law prescribes. If they're allowed to issue awards of millions of dollars for hurt feelings, they probably will (although I think this is a gross and unjust oversimplification). In the case of FTL, it was an accident, which (unless there's something we don't know) eliminates all of the mitigating circumstances involved in the fag-hater case. There was no malicious intent, no group coordination of activity, no message of hate designed to intimidate or incite anger, no premeditation, etc. Just an accident. Insofar as the person who caused it was careless, from a civil standpoint, the jury would award what they felt to be commensurate with the level of unjust pain caused to FTL. No idea what that amount would be.

This is what judges and juries do. They consider all of the facts, and they do what they consider fair in their judgement. It is what it is. I'm certainly a tort reform advocate, but these types of hypotheticals are kinda meaningless given the vast gaps in complexity between them and this very real case.
Qubes is offline  
post #27 of 61 (permalink) Old 11-01-2007, 03:55 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
Well, taking away the violence [which has not always remained non-lethal] what about just the very harsh and very vocal protests? I have seen both Phelps protests at Military funerals and Benham protests at Clinics up close and there frankly is ZERO difference.
If there is ZERO difference, then someone may be encouraged by this recent judgement to bring a similar suit against Benham. Assuming the case is presented similarly, etc., a jury would probably be well within its rights to issue a similar reward.

Perhaps what you're fishing for is this: In the Phelps case, the plaintiff didn't do anything wrong - his son had died, and he was going to his burial, and was subjected to this premeditated, organized hateful onslaught.

In the hypothetical above, if the plaintiff were a young woman who was actually going in for an abortion, a jury might be harder pressed to see their relative innocence. Getting an abortion at a walk-in clinic is plainly a willful, elective, lifestyle-related activity...attending the funeral of your child isn't.

That said, a plaintiff considering taking Benham to court would have an easier time with their case if they were visiting a Planned Parenthood for example, for a reproductive health issue unrelated to birth control. Imagine if you will, a woman with an STD looking for information or guidance on whether or not childbirth is something she should pursue.

Since the Benham crew probably doesn't stop to ask "Are you here to kill your baby?" before lighting into a patron, they're exposing themselves to just such a lawsuit. They probably deserve whatever the system doles out.
Qubes is offline  
post #28 of 61 (permalink) Old 11-01-2007, 04:02 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR View Post
So, two things here.

1) Intent. The bastards in question above intended to intimidate, and spew a message of hate, precisely picking the opportunity upon which they would mobilize and act. It was a group of people, and much premeditation was involved. This wasn't a flare-up in the heat of the moment. This was a cold, calculated effort to set an ignition spark to a very emotionally charged atmosphere. Inciting hate or riots is not protected by anything, to say nothing of the fact that this case wasn't criminal in nature - I think this fact is overlooked at the peril of the observer.

2) Damages. The jury can only do what the law prescribes. If they're allowed to issue awards of millions of dollars for hurt feelings, they probably will (although I think this is a gross and unjust oversimplification). In the case of FTL, it was an accident, which (unless there's something we don't know) eliminates all of the mitigating circumstances involved in the fag-hater case. There was no malicious intent, no group coordination of activity, no message of hate designed to intimidate or incite anger, no premeditation, etc. Just an accident. Insofar as the person who caused it was careless, from a civil standpoint, the jury would award what they felt to be commensurate with the level of unjust pain caused to FTL. No idea what that amount would be.

This is what judges and juries do. They consider all of the facts, and they do what they consider fair in their judgement. It is what it is. I'm certainly a tort reform advocate, but these types of hypotheticals are kinda meaningless given the vast gaps in complexity between them and this very real case.
Nanny nanny boo boo trumps permanent disability/disfigurement/death. In that case, I can only hope such a tragedy befalls me -- and as quickly as possible. Early retirement never looked so good.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #29 of 61 (permalink) Old 11-01-2007, 04:04 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Qubes is offline  
post #30 of 61 (permalink) Old 11-01-2007, 04:14 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Two can play this game

^ common sense - Definitions from Dictionary.com

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Funeral Songs MRTIKKET Off-Topic 92 01-13-2014 06:52 PM
    Newbie problem (I'm sure has been addressed millions of times before). Booker W210 E-Class 20 07-21-2007 03:56 AM
    Far rightwing protestors disrupt hero's funeral in New Hampshire FeelTheLove Off-Topic 126 05-04-2007 05:33 AM
    Millions of Iraqis Vote in Relative Peace firstmb Off-Topic 11 12-17-2005 11:28 AM
    Cheating wife gets millions in divorce GeeS Off-Topic 9 03-28-2005 07:22 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome